Experience, Time Investment, and Motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers

Published on Dec 1, 2008in Journal of Nursing Scholarship2.54
· DOI :10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00255.x
Margaret H. Kearney26
Estimated H-index: 26
(UR: University of Rochester),
Judith Gedney Baggs21
Estimated H-index: 21
+ 2 AuthorsMargaret Comerford Freda20
Estimated H-index: 20
(Yeshiva University)
Purpose: To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role. Design: Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: A 69-question survey containing both fixed-option and open-ended questions and accessed via the World Wide Web was completed by 1,675 nursing journal reviewers who had been invited to participate by editors of 52 nursing journals. Findings: Participants were from 44 countries, with 74% from the US, and 90% were nurses. The majority were doctorally prepared academics who were involved in research. They reported spending an average of 5 hours on each critique and completed an average of 7–8 reviews per year. The most common reason reported for becoming involved was personal contact with an editor. Lack of time because of competing work commitments was the most commonly cited barrier to reviewing and negative aspect of the role. The most common positive aspect was keeping up to date with the field. Conclusions: Nursing journal peer reviewers express rewards and challenges similar to those reported elsewhere for biomedical journal reviewers. Based on these findings, editors might consider new approaches to recruiting and supporting reviewers, and potential reviewers might gain insight into the role. Support of these distinguished scholars in this important role is critical to sustain the quality of scholarship that informs nursing practice, education, and research. Clinical Relevance: Clinicians, researchers, and educators who rely on the quality of the articles published in nursing journals can learn from this survey about the background and experiences of those who protect that quality by providing expert feedback to authors and editors.
  • References (9)
  • Citations (28)
#1S. Claiborne Johnston (UCSF: University of California, San Francisco)H-Index: 80
#2Daniel H. Lowenstein (UCSF: University of California, San Francisco)H-Index: 65
Last.Adam F. Stewart (UCSF: University of California, San Francisco)H-Index: 2
view all 7 authors...
Cited By28
#1Richard B. Primack (BU: Boston University)H-Index: 51
#2Martine Maron (UQ: University of Queensland)H-Index: 27
Last.Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz (University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus)H-Index: 14
view all 3 authors...
#1Syavash Nobarany (UBC: University of British Columbia)H-Index: 4
#2Kellogg S. Booth (UBC: University of British Columbia)H-Index: 34
Last.Gary Hsieh (UW: University of Washington)H-Index: 18
view all 3 authors...
#1Jiayun Xu (UofU: University of Utah)H-Index: 4
#2Kyounghae Kim (Johns Hopkins University)H-Index: 4
Last.Marie T. Nolan Rn (Johns Hopkins University)H-Index: 20
view all 4 authors...
#1Melanie Jasper (Swansea University)H-Index: 17
#2Mojtaba Vaismoradi (Swansea University)H-Index: 16
Last.Hannele Turunen (University of Eastern Finland)H-Index: 18
view all 4 authors...
View next paperBlinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals